Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing social model among the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) in South Korea is to maintain somewhat sexually free but separate social enclaves. This strategy avoids significant public backlash and government oppression. However, the situation leaves them without legal protection, social acceptance or significant public space for expressing their sexual identity. Supporters of greater integration pursue a politically activist model, which advocates government recognition and protection of the LGBT as an oppressed minority. This strategy faces determined opposition from some Christian groups and a mostly indifferent public. We highlight a complementary “bridging-dialogue” model in which individual LGBT persons nurture communicative social ties with members of the larger society in ostensibly non-political settings. Although emerging and limited, the bridging strategy attracts many more participants than does identity politics and generates genuine dialogue and other social exchange among different groups, including conservative Christians and foreign-origin LGBTs. Bridging dialogue also appeals to a younger generation of Koreans, who are more tolerant of and curious about ethnic and sexual diversity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".